It is said that the first audience to see Hedda Gabler was shocked, its critics following up with negative reviews. That was in Munich in early 1891. The first British audience, only a few months later, warmed to Henrik Ibsen's social drama, and no doubt the daring portrait of its title character helped secure the interest that would bring the first production to the U.S. (1898), followed by subsequent American mountings that helped establish the play as something very important.
Hedda comes off as a compelling individual — even if unlikable — and her character is crafted in such a way that actors' interpretations of the role almost always vary in nuance. There's a wealth of neurosis to be explored in that conflicted lady of an impending modern age, a pioneering dramatic persona who hints at the possibility of liberation — if only in theory.Â
Unfortunately, Hedda's motivations are sourced in negativity and unhappiness evinced by poor decision-making. While she's somewhat a victim of the expectations of bourgeois society, she can't seem to do anything, out of a sense of regard for the common good. But it is entertaining to watch her make a mess of things, all in reaction to the stifling boredom of her domestic life.
The Actors Bridge Ensemble's collaboration with Belmont University has realized a generally instructive and period-appropriate vision for Ibsen's masterwork. That includes the attractive, spacious drawing-room set designed by Robert Helvey — with its lordly portrait of Hedda's imposing pater, Gen. Gabler — and some fine costumes by Jessica S. Mueller.
Dominating the rich scenery is Grace Kelly Mason, a poised young actress well-suited to tackle the ornery Hedda. Clearly unhappy in her short-lived marriage to the pedantic, unexciting — and financially overextended — academic George Tesman (Craig Fairbanks), Mason's Hedda broods and paces like a caged cat, displays a penchant for playing with pistols, and then conspires to upset the lives of innocent others who have half a glimmer of a chance more than she for happiness.
Specifically, she jealously mucks with the minds of her former lover, troubled but brilliant Eilert Lövborg (Michael Joiner), and a former schoolmate, Thea Elvsted (Ashley Joye), who despite her own suffocating marriage to a much older man has proven to be Lövborg's inspiration in conquering his alcohol problem and producing a well-received recent book. (General histories of civilization apparently sold well in those days.)
Mason, Fairbanks, Joiner and Joye are all Belmont students and naturally younger in appearance than we might normally expect for their roles. (For example, a 48-year-old Ingrid Bergman played Hedda in 1963 against 55-year-old Michael Redgrave's George Tesman. Other examples abound of mature casting.) But director C.J. Tucker, who made an impressive debut with Actors Bridge in July 2014 with 100 Saints You Should Know, elicits steady performances that are credible and consistent and keep the audience well-focused on Ibsen's thoughtful expose of 19th century marital misery and the realities of narrow personal choice and the oppression of women.Â
In addition, there is strong acting from non-student Actors Bridge veterans Kay Ayers, who is perfect as Tesman's beloved and doting Aunt Julianna, and Brandon Boyd, who turns in a cagey characterization of the scheming, morally ambiguous, even lecherous Judge Brack — a character who is not above a really unseemly strain of blackmail in conniving his way into Hedda's life. Belmont student Rose Eichhorn is also very good as the Tesmans' maid Berta.
 "I can't bear illness or death," says Hedda. The word "love" also makes her bristle. Meanwhile, the strangely suffocating and disappointing triangulations of her social sphere heighten the melodrama in Act 2, and over a mere two-day period, Ibsen's protagonist is suddenly facing the blackest spiritual hole and a date with destruction.
With the single-minded intensity of a 21st century terrorist, Hedda almost hypnotically charges down a ruinous path, boldly claiming that suicide is noble and brave. Those personal disturbances are enough to have roused an 1891 audience to vocal objections — and it's still pretty powerful stuff today. While this production may not be definitive, it is satisfyingly illustrative of the play's historical resonance and classic status — and it also showcases talented thespians doing very good work.
Email arts@nashvillescene.com
